From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:13:58 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Magnus Damm Cc: Cort Dougan , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: bi_record and initrd Message-ID: <20021118171358.GA17957@opus.bloom.county> References: <3DD3C747.8B7EE5CD@opensource.se> <20021114174807.GC605@opus.bloom.county> <3DD4E271.16FA374A@opensource.se> <20021115100857.H9673@duath.fsmlabs.com> <3DD8A28C.E8EABFF@opensource.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3DD8A28C.E8EABFF@opensource.se> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Magnus Damm wrote: > > This would be a good opportunity to switch-over to allowing the bootloader > > stick the initrd where it wants and just pass the physical pointer in via > > bi_record in all cases. It would certainly simplify these cases. > > So, the following registers passed to the kernel could change from > > * r3: ptr to board info data > * r4: initrd_start or if no initrd then 0 > * r5: initrd_end - unused if r4 is 0 > * r6: Start of command line string > * r7: End of command line string In arch/ppc/boot, only r3 is used now, FWIW. > to > > * r3: ptr to bi_record Or so, yes. Look at the archives for discussions / flamewars about bi_records. > If the initrd is going to be passed with the bi_record, and the command line > already is there, then it's just the board info left. (for the 8xx anyhow) The initrd already is, right now. And yes, the bd_t would be passed, or phased out, see the above mentioned discussions / flamewars. > Or maybe there are zillions of applications booting the kernel directly > without the bootloader.. Something _always_ loads the kernel someplace. Call it what you will, but the thing moving the kernel to 0 and pressing go is the bootloader. Oh, and see the above mentioned discissions / flamewars :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/